Trump Will Win In 2020 #DT2020

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I disagree 100%.

The U.S. 2nd Amendment is specifically for U.S. citizens to defend themselves against the government if it becomes tyrannical.  The U.S. 2nd Amendment is not about guns being used for "hunting".

Ok, your little rebel militias are going to to take on modern weaponry? Where is your right to bear tanks and anti-aircraft rockets?

Archaic ideas...

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, Enthalpic said:

Ok, your little rebel militias are going to to take on modern weaponry? Where is your right to bear tanks and anti-aircraft rockets?

Archaic ideas...

Clearly, we will never agree about guns.  No problem.  Carry on.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Clearly, we will never agree about guns.  No problem.  Carry on.

I own a premium high-powered air rifle. Fun to shoot cans and get rid of random vermin.  I'm not totally anti gun.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Exactly!

Guns are for hunting, not defense.

"Less lethal" things like tasers and pepper spray should be easier to get, guns much harder.

It would be interesting to see you defend yourself against an armed intruder/criminal (yes, criminals will have guns regardless what the law is) with your pepper spray and taser.

[Michael Sanches + 187]

19 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

 At conception, there is no sex assignment. 

This is an amazing anti-science statement. At conception you are either the male sex (XY) or the female sex (XX).

You also have a new, unique DNA configuration, which any crime lab can recognize as a different person than the mother. Unfortunately, the baby lives in the uterus of the mother. And, in this country, we are allowed to kill people based on residence.

[Michael Sanches + 187]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Ok, your little rebel militias are going to to take on modern weaponry? Where is your right to bear tanks and anti-aircraft rockets?

Archaic ideas...

Exactly. That is why the Vietcong militia lost and Vietnam is an American colony. The North Vietnamese should have realized that they could never make America leave.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Ok, your little rebel militias are going to to take on modern weaponry? Where is your right to bear tanks and anti-aircraft rockets?

Archaic ideas...

Tell that to the Iranian people who have absolutely NO means of defending themselves and are not considered a threat by the people in power.

Imagine, if you will, that the theocracy had to consider an armed population, even if that population only had small arms.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Tell that to the Iranian people who have absolutely NO means of defending themselves and are not considered a threat by the people in power.

Imagine, if you will, that the theocracy had to consider an armed population, even if that population only had small arms.

Ok but in the case of the USA your armed forces can take on everything.  Hence your "rights" to militia guns is kind of silly.  You are not a threat to the people in power - best you can do is another civil war.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Michael Sanches said:

This is an amazing anti-science statement. At conception you are either the male sex (XY) or the female sex (XX).

Read up on your science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome

also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

Edited September 10, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Sanches said:

21 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

 At conception, there is no sex assignment. 

This is an amazing anti-science statement.

Oh boy. Coffee time .....

Edited September 10, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Ok but in the case of the USA your armed forces can take on everything.  Hence your "rights" to militia guns is kind of silly.  You are not a threat to the people in power - best you can do is another civil war.

And armed population is a threat to tyranny, whether that was 250 years ago or at present. Furthermore, you are assuming that the American armed forces would blindly follow “the people in power”.

At the end of the day, from your comments, I assume you are not American and are making the mistake of trying to transfer your cultural norms to those of the American people. This is a common error in debate.

Many Americans grew up around guns and do not fear them (fear of an inanimate object is odd in any case), they simply see them as an instrument which allows them to hunt, provide protection and yes, provide sport. I would say that this is a situation unique to America.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

And armed population is a threat to tyranny, whether that was 250 years ago or at present. Furthermore, you are assuming that the American armed forces would blindly follow “the people in power”.

At the end of the day, from your comments, I assume you are not American and are making the mistake of trying to transfer your cultural norms to those of the American people. This is a common error in debate.

Many Americans grew up around guns and do not fear them (fear of an inanimate object is odd in any case), they simply see them as an instrument which allows them to hunt, provide protection and yes, provide sport. I would say that this is a situation unique to America.

I'm Canadian, I grew up playing with guns. I do not fear them.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Guest]

LOL it was a low comment clearly. Suggesting someone kill themselves because they have an opposing view on gun ownership.

F**k me. Let's move on. 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Guest

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

LOL it was a low comment clearly. Suggesting someone kill themselves because they have an opposing view on gun ownership.

F**k me. Let's move on. 

 

 

I said someone was "wrong" the other day and was called out. 😂

I'm a good sport with thick skin.

 

[Guest]

You were wrong. Fact   . We argued but I'd never say something as low as that.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

47 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

I'm Canadian, I grew up playing with guns. I do not fear them.

Perhaps you should not have been ‘playing’ with them....

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Ok, as a moderator I did the best I could cleaning up the mess and some related comments about the mess.  Someone has earned a time out to cool down a bit.  Hopefully this thread still makes sense with a few chunks taken away.

Just a reminder, go ahead and vigorously debate any topic or issue you wish, but lobbing personal attacks will result in a time out or other disciplinary action.  Keep it clean guys and gals (yes, there are only 2 genders.... deal with it).

If you see a comment that needs action taken by a moderator, please alert a mod.  We don't read every comment of every thread.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

(yes, there are only 2 genders.... deal with it).

Quite an assertion

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, DayTrader said:

Quite an assertion

Dang it, apparently there are 6 genders ... 2 actual genders and 4 lifestyle choice preferences of which gender name people wish to be called.

BBC education film that claims there are 'more than 100 gender identities' is blasted as 'nonsense' and accused of 'confusing' primary school children

• BBC Teach released nine films to support the PSHE curriculum in schools
• Currently only six genders are officially recognised by the Royal College of GPs
• But up until recently Facebook also offered users a range of 71 gender options 

Currently, six genders are officially recognised by the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents those who are often the first point of contact to people questioning their identity.

These six are male, female, gender-neutral, non-binary, gender-fluid and gender-queer.

A foundation called Transgender Trend represents families that are concerned about the surge in diagnosing young children as transgender.

Founder Stephanie Davies-Arai said: 'This is made-up nonsense.  

'People are free to identify as anything they like but this does not change the reality that there are only two sexes.'

She went on to say that this new advice will inevitably 'confuse' children into believing that they can choose their biological sex.

 

[Guest]

It's just madness. Society is doomed. Oh, Facebook involved in this nonsense. What a surprise. 

I identify as an octopus, so I am an octopus?  Er, no, you need help.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Getting back on topic ...

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Keep it clean guys and gals (yes, there are only 2 genders.... deal with it).

Unfortunately, Tom, that is imprecise.  Regrettably some children are born with NO sexual organs, or sexual organs that are sufficiently diminished or pluralized that it becomes not possible to assign a claim of gender.  It is quite infrequent, but it does happen.  Other than some form of surgical determinism, there is not much to do.  I would argue that surgical determinism is in itself a form of societal anxiety, but hey, that is just my opinion.  "You are free to disagree."  Cheers. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The U.S. 2nd Amendment is specifically for U.S. citizens to defend themselves against the government if it becomes tyrannical.  The U.S. 2nd Amendment is not about guns being used for "hunting".

Folks, this is one of those rare times when Tom and I fully agree.  The descriptive of the actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment (to the US Constitution) is historically accurate.  

The great fear of the time was that the Colonists, having paid such a high price in blood and treasure to secure their freedom form what they saw as English tyranny, would be faced with the same set of circumstances at some point down the road, when the new Government again morphed into tyranny.  SO a massive effort was put into providing what is now referenced as "check and balances," a regime in which no single person could become a quasi-King, and no institution could seize operational power and become either a monarchy  (the primary fear) or a "Dictatorship" (a secondary fear).   Dictatorships were uncommon, with Napoleon not yet on the scene as dictator.  But you could see the storm clouds. 

The American solution, quite unique, was to divide things up between three "Houses," the Legislative (the President), the Congressional  (itself divided into two Houses, to keep a check on each other), and the Judicial  (US Supreme Court and its lesser included Courts). But even that was not enough.  So the Document included all kinds of arcane Prohibitions, including that "troops may not be quartered," the British practice of barging into private homes and parking themselves inside, to take over the bedrooms and the dining room, drink all the owner's winces and eat all his food   (what, you expect soldiers to bivouac out in the field?  Ridiculous!), and the prohibition of Bills of Attainder.  And to make it even more distributive of power, it installed a very arduous Amendment process that really limited the ability of one person or group to take over and change things. 

In that series of the first 12 Amendments, ten were "ratified" and added to the Constitution at inception, including No. 2 on bearing arms.  And again, the historical impetus for this was to be sure the last bulwark against a tyrannical take-over could be thwarted by "the People" themselves, to go storm Washington and take their country back by force.  So, bottom line:   Tom is right. 

Now, as to (the Canadian) Enthalpic's comment that the citizens cannot take on tanks and rockets of a modern army, that is an incorrect analysis.  Pursuant to certain Acts now part of the American legal system, the Army cannot be called out in cases of civilian insurrection against the Government.  I have a recollection this is called the "Posse Comitatus Act," but hey, been a while since I studied this.  In effect, in the civilians do an uprising, the army stays in its barracks.  Whether or not the generals of the day will obey that Law is another matter.  But, if the Generals try to intervene, then that General will be facing arrest (if he is on the losing side). 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Ok but in the case of the USA your armed forces can take on everything.  Hence your "rights" to militia guns is kind of silly.  You are not a threat to the people in power - best you can do is another civil war.

In the American system the authority to govern flows only from the People themselves.  There is no absolute right, nor is there Divine Right of Kings   ("Droit du Roi").  And even in monarchies today, the Right of the Monarch only flows from the consent of the royal subjects.  Ultimately, as Divine Right is abolished, even a Monarch can be removed or the entire Monarchy abolished.  In the European context, it would be unthinkable in Western Europe, and looked at dubiously in Eastern Europe. No one today claims that King WIllem Alexander is Monarch by Order of God.  No, we pledge our fealty as a free people.  The Americans have taken it a step farther, and abolished not only the Monarchy, but also the Titles of Nobility.  There is no "Sir" (except, of course, in the Army, where these vestiges of British military tradition still remain).  The President is addressed as "Mr. Washington" or "Mr. Jefferson," and never as "Sir."   (By convention, the President is now addressed as "Mr. President," you see that in the movies, but in reality that is up to each new President if he wants to do that or not.  Personally, I would abolish that, as it is puffery and preening, but hey, just my opinion, "you are free to disagree."). 

If authority only flows from the People, then by definition the Army cannot attack the People.   The Army sits it out in the military barracks. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Unfortunately, Tom, that is imprecise.  Regrettably some children are born with NO sexual organs, or sexual organs that are sufficiently diminished or pluralized that it becomes not possible to assign a claim of gender.  It is quite infrequent, but it does happen.  Other than some form of surgical determinism, there is not much to do.  I would argue that surgical determinism is in itself a form of societal anxiety, but hey, that is just my opinion.  "You are free to disagree."  Cheers. 

Jan, what you are talking about isn’t really the issue, is it?

If someone is born with a genetic defect, that is one thing. When they are born with a complete set of genitalia, that is another.

Some may have confusion about their ‘given’ gender as it relates to their mental state. But I believe that for many in the LGBTXYZ community it is simply a matter of choice.

If that assumption is correct, then I am opposed to handcuffing the un-confused, which is the majority of the population, to the whims and wants of the confused.

If a parent wants his/her daughter to be able to go into a restroom which is only for ‘true’ females...how can you disagree with them?